Ryan's Toolbox

Non-monogamous relationships are demanding; polyamorous ones more so. Drawing on Orion Taraban’s work in The Value of Others (2025) on value and desire asymmetry - including the distinction between sexual desire and resource desire - this perspective acknowledges that partners rarely experience attraction and leverage symmetrically. Relationship symmetry invites each partner to examine what they genuinely admire in the other, where imbalances exist, and how these shape power, insecurity, and attachment within the relationship.

Policies that restrict one partner’s freedom - most commonly limiting a bisexual woman’s partners in a heterosexual couple - carry a high risk of resentment and destabilisation when they are not fully consensual. When such rules are imposed rather than chosen, they often reflect fear rather than mutual values. Therapeutic work in this area focuses on bringing unspoken resentment into the open and helping couples negotiate boundaries that are sustainable, equitable, and aligned with their shared understanding of non-monogamy.

When dominant and submissive roles extend beyond the erotic context into everyday life, confusion and emotional imbalance can emerge. For some couples, this blending is intentional; for others, it is accidental and distressing. Attention to “role creep” helps partners distinguish between erotic power exchange and day-to-day relational functioning. The aim is not to suppress desire, but to rebalance the relationship in a way that honours both the raw intimacy of the sexual dynamic and the mutual respect required outside the bedroom.

In every micro and macro action we do, there are four distinct steps. I help clients to recognise and achieve mindful control of each of these steps so that the externalisations are mannered and designed to achieve what we want from situation to situation.

Our senses tell us that something is happening. The experience may be internal - hunger, anxiety, regret - or external, such as hearing a partner say something or observing a behaviour. Sensory input is not always reliable; it is partial, filtered, and prone to distortion. A central question at this stage is whether we have gathered sufficient and accurate information.

Dialectical Behaviour Therapy is particularly relevant here. DBT skills support reality-testing, emotional regulation, and perspective-taking, which is especially important for individuals with disorganised attachment patterns or heightened emotional reactivity. Careful attention to input allows the nervous system to settle enough for further processing to occur.

Once information is received, it is processed through memory, personality, attachment history, and cognitive habit. Past experiences heavily shape how we respond, often outside of conscious awareness. This is where Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is most effective, helping clients notice assumptions, automatic thoughts, and entrenched interpretations that drive reactive or rigid behaviour.

Processing is not about suppressing emotion, but about understanding how meaning is constructed from experience, and where that construction may be incomplete or inaccurate.

From this processing, the brain generates potential courses of action. These may be primary impulses or secondary, more considered responses. At this stage, strategy begins to form, shaped by perceived threat, desire, and past outcomes.

Therapeutic work here focuses on interrupting habitual tactical responses. By slowing this phase down, clients gain greater agency over which strategies they deploy, rather than defaulting to familiar but unhelpful patterns.

Output is how our internal world becomes visible to others. This may be explicit, such as words or actions, or subtle, such as withdrawal, tone, or avoidance of eye contact. Relationships can only adjust to what is expressed.

The work at this stage involves helping clients articulate their internal experience clearly and proportionately, so that meaning can be checked, misunderstandings corrected, and conclusions tested in real time. This is difficult, but essential for relational repair and growth.

Under threat, humans tend toward fight, flight, freeze, or fawn. While all four responses are adaptive in survival contexts, only some are useful for evolving relationships. IPRO Theory offers a way to slow reactivity, increase choice, and replace automatic survival responses with deliberate relational action.

This relationship check in format was developed after the events of Anna-gate as depicted in my book In the Wake of Her (2026).

Each partner takes turns to recount what they understand are their partner's concerns with their behaviour are. Clarity on each point is allowed, but gently and briefly.

Each Partner mentions what they think they've been getting better at. The other partner can briefly agreed or disagree but not discuss at length.

Each partner discusses emerging issues they've seen if applicable.

Each partner discusses times recently that have made them feel seen, considered, loved.

Each partner discusses where their partner can make them feek seen, considered, desired. If we don't know, then we can't expect our partner to know.

Sex is so vital. The ultimate expression of comfort and intimacy. 

I provide career coaching services to help you achieve your professional goals. Together, we will work on argument mediation techniques to enhance your communication skills, while also focusing on boundary setting to ensure a healthy work-life balance. Additionally, we will explore the social comparison theory to better understand your strengths, develop your skills, and create a career plan that aligns with your passion.

Not every action-reaction duality leads to an argument. Some reactions are swallowed, while others may escalate to retaliation or devolve into silent resentment. However, when two people engage in argument mediation by expressing their defense of their actions or preferences, the potential for a conflict arises. This situation often requires boundary setting to navigate the emotions involved. Ultimately, resolution can only be achieved through forgiveness, realization, remedy, or obliteration (forgetting), all of which can be influenced by social comparison theory.

Since an argument is made of action and reaction, the apology of the actor too must be made of two types of feelings: being sorry for one's actions and being sorry that the reactor is reactive. I coach clients through argument mediation to identify the ratio at which the behavior and trigger causes upset, as well as the ratio at which the apology expresses regret for the action and empathy towards the affected party's trigger. This process also involves boundary setting to ensure clear communication. To explore more about triggers, see my content on CBD in non-monogamy, which relates to social comparison theory.

Arguments are influenced by the past, present, and future of a couple, which can be complex to navigate. By utilizing my flowchart, couples can engage in effective argument mediation to better understand their position within this intricate system. This approach also emphasizes boundary setting, allowing each partner to express their needs. Additionally, it incorporates elements of social comparison theory to help couples assess their dynamics in relation to one another.

It's no secret that good feedback is a happier way to achieve goals. Congratulations (feeling good about something we did (not do)) and pride (feeling good about something we are (not)) serve as powerful motivators to keep going. In the context of argument mediation, understanding these emotions can enhance our approach. However, guilt (feeling bad about something we did (not) do) and shame (feeling about something we are (not)) act as useful 'wrong way' signs that can redirect us. While there are certainly versions of ill-founded guilt and shame that we should not dwell on, a benign and short-term negative feedback loop can motivate many clients under instruction. This relates to boundary setting and how we interpret feedback through the lens of social comparison theory, influencing our drive and determination.

With clients' permission, I'm able to provide a double whammy of energisation through regular mid-week calls that not only encourage you to reach the next checkpoint in your projects but also facilitate argument mediation and boundary setting. Having an enthusiastic collaborator or spectator is often half the battle, especially when considering the principles of social comparison theory. Focus on your goals!